What I'll never understand about the draft

[Omeletpants]

[video=facebook_share;1176527139148319]https://www.facebook.com/Readingry/videos/1176527139148319/?t=9[/video]

 

[Penny Traitor]

 

[Smokey Robinson]

I agree if he’s your guy go get him but I feel certain postions are reaches at different points in the draft.

If history shows RB and OG can be consistently found later in the draft, I believe taking one top 10 (or first round in general) is a reach based on need.

 

[TL1961]

See, this is the line of thought when you are insulated from the risk. Fact is, teams "reach" all the time for the player they want, and in fact will trade up to do so. Talking about "could" and "may" is speculation, and playing based on that can cause you to lose out on a player that would have been a great fit. Teams act independent of your expectations and you have to be smart about making presumptions.

You do what it takes to get the guy who will make a difference on your team. If that means a bit if a reach, then reach. If that means trading up, then trade up (see: Aaron Donald). This isn't about getting a guy who could be had most of a round later, but more about taking a guy at 8 that you expect to be there at 15.

I agree with this. I guess my point is that simply taking a guy you like is not always the best play to make. But I have no problem trading up when you feel there's a guy worth it. And, yeah, that could be considered a "reach" in some cases.

I suppose I just read all the responses here, and everyone was ignoring the fact that knowing when you can get a guy is a big factor.

 

[TL1961]

Well Pace took Kevin @7 which I thought was a reach, I thought he did the same with Mitch by trading up. So if White fades away and Mitch does not pan out this year I will be on the Pace get fired team.

So, you're giving a QB who had literally nobody who could catch a ball in Year 1, a year and a half to be a star, or you're firing the GM?

 

[JoJoBoxer]

So while obviously there are differences in prospects as to where you can recommend likely rounds players should be drafted in, the difference between a few picks up or down is a pointless argument. If it's the guy you really like, get him, whether he's mocked there or a handful of picks later.

But what is a handful?

You mention recommending likely rounds meaning that it is generally a bad idea to draft someone a round before you have them rated (recommended). Does a 1/2 round matter? Someone mentioned that it doesn't matter if you draft someone at 8 even if the evaluation is 13 or 24. Well 24 is 16 picks after 8 or half a round.

When people talk about value, they are talking about perceived currency paid for a given item or draft pick in this case. If you have someone who you consider to be evaluated by your people as someone who should be available 1/2 a round later, you either better draft someone who is a BPA whose perceived value (by your scouts) is closer to your current pick or seriously try to trade down closer to your perception of that player. If not, you are just throwing away your draft currency. If some other team drafts that player before your trade down draft pick, their perceived value for him was higher than yours which is ok. Unless you are dealing with a QB, don't overpay for a player.

Teams need to buy into their scouting departments, create a draft strategy and stick to it on draft night. Finally, evaluate your scouting department in terms of past drafts because you need to have faith in your scouting department or change some of their members.

Teams need to have their group of players that they run to the podium for, their group of players (N) that are all equal as BPA if the podium-runners are all gone (and the willingness to trade down a bit (N-1)) and the trade scenarios where they are willing to listen to other teams' crazy offers.

If the Bears scouting department has someone the pundits consider a second rounder as the BPA at 8, then they should draft him. Sure, the national media and Omeletpants will call Pace an idiot but Ommy was going to do that anyhow. However; if the Bears scouting department considers a player to be someone that should be available half a round later, they shouldn't draft him just because he won't be around in the 2nd round. There was a reason that your scouting department did not rate him higher. Now someone who they rated as something like the 13 best player is fair game at 8.

 

[JoJoBoxer]

So if he is Pace's guy and is a theoretical reach, you would advocate a theoretical trade down?
That makes you a Trade down clown :

No, that makes him a theoretical trade down clown.

 

[JoJoBoxer]

Then there are thing that aren't reaches but just plain stupid like TB taking Roberto Aguayo in the second round. He could be a top 5 kicker and it was still a stupid pick. Whoever valued a kicker as a 2nd rnd pick should forever have his draft board sharpie revoked.

Tell that to the Raiders who drafted Ray Guy (punter) in the 1st (23rd overall) and Sebastian Janikowski (kicker) in the 1st also (17th). Ray Guy is a Hall-of-Famer and Sebastian Janikowski was probably more impactful than half of the other 1st rounders in the 2000 draft.

 

[JoJoBoxer]

I was saying this before we signed AR12 and T.Gabriel when talking about C.Ridley and everyone was saying he isn't worth pick #8.

How would you feel if the Bears picked Ridley at 8?

You better be happy as a pig in shit or you wanted to reach for a need.

 

[JoJoBoxer]

But no GM knows if that player can be had later which is what makes the draft a crap shot. If one GM likes that player in the early 1st round then who's to say 5 other GM's don't also like him in the early 1st round?

That is where you have to trust your scouting department.

If your scouting department tells you that player X is BPA at 8, then draft him and national media be damned.

If your scouting department tells you that player X should be drafted around 13, then consider who is available at 8. If you think that player X will fit your system better than comparable players available at 8, draft him at 8. Don't take a chance of losing him.

If your scouting department tells you that, in their estimation, player X is only worth being drafted 1/2 round later, then draft someone else or trade down a bit and try to draft that player. If another team drafts him at 18 when you expected him to be available at 24, that is ok. Your scouting department did not see him being worth the 18th pick let alone the 8th pick. Why overdraft someone whom your scouting department doesn't really like?

 

[JoJoBoxer]

Therefore, if this thread holds any water, both terms are equally useless. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Or both have value and people here are just wrong?

 

[JoJoBoxer]

I watch him play vs. ND and he did show talent however he was handled by a good oline and not saying ND had a great team but the left side dominated and the nfl is only better.

How many NFL teams have a left side of their line that was better than ND's left side?

 

[JoJoBoxer]

Well Pace took Kevin @7 which I thought was a reach, I thought he did the same with Mitch by trading up. So if White fades away and Mitch does not pan out this year I will be on the Pace get fired team.

So you are suddenly a better scout than the Bears?

Who should the Bears take at 8 and why?

 

[wazzupi]

How many NFL teams have a left side of their line that was better than ND's left side?

Probably half the league.

 

[JoJoBoxer]

Probably half the league.

Still, it means that ND had an offensive left side better than half of the NFL. That is pretty impressive.

 

[Outlaw Josey Cutler]

Because having Mel Kiper, Jr. throw his notes in the air and yell, "FUCK IT, none of us have ANY idea how these guys will turn out!" followed by three hours of silence would make for poor TV ratings.

This comment deserved more thanks imo. And while you are spot on, it does strike me that there is a real clear need for true draft analyis that can actually start at that point right there. There must be a real way to cover the draft by starting out "We have no idea who is going to be good and who is not" then addressing that picks only have value in the sense that GMs who think they have projected the likelihood of success get to select before others who also have a formula for projected success they believe in.

From there, I would pay money to watch a draft show that fits draft picks into their new teams by X's and O's (Kollman style) of game film in 5 parts:

1) what they did well at college
2) what they did not do well at college
3) the O or D system of their new team
4) what role they could fill in their new team (eg McPhee film vs. new OLB drafted)
5) what role on new team they could struggle with (eg McPhee had pretty good bend around for sacks when healthy but new OLB has to get off clean)

This probably could not be done in too much detail on draft day(s). But the notes for talking points and the queue for the quick clips and graphics should be informed by this strategy imo.

And when someone gets shocked like the experts did with Trubisky, they can honestly say that they were unprepared for this movement. They could even have their own "post war room" or something where they say "This was totally unexpected. Let's get our post war room working on our analysis system for this Case X that we did not anticipate". They could even hype up the results for pre-day 2 talk by advertising: "results from post war room on the shocking Trubisky pick" at 7:50 EST and followed up by the opening of Day 2 at 8! Check your local listings)"

I hate the draft coverage and I would honestly tune in for thoughtful analysis of the prospect and his role on his new team, all NFL teams. I love the whole sport that much.

If I had time and money to put together a youtube channel that might generate extra cash as a breath of fresh air vs. ESPN and NFL Network, that would be something I would like to do or research or help out.

 

[Mdbearz]

A reach is a pick like Wolf, because that kid was NOT going to be drafted in the 3rd round. He was likely a 5th rounder or later, because of his size and small school.

A reach in my definition is one that had a high likelihood of being drafted at least a ROUND later. Other than that if the pick works out then to hell with the "reach" term

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

This comment deserved more thanks imo. And while you are spot on, it does strike me that there is a real clear need for true draft analyis that can actually start at that point right there. There must be a real way to cover the draft by starting out "We have no idea who is going to be good and who is not" then addressing that picks only have value in the sense that GMs who think they have projected the likelihood of success get to select before others who also have a formula for projected success they believe in.

From there, I would pay money to watch a draft show that fits draft picks into their new teams by X's and O's (Kollman style) of game film in 5 parts:

1) what they did well at college
2) what they did not do well at college
3) the O or D system of their new team
4) what role they could fill in their new team (eg McPhee film vs. new OLB drafted)
5) what role on new team they could struggle with (eg McPhee had pretty good bend around for sacks when healthy but new OLB has to get off clean)

This probably could not be done in too much detail on draft day(s). But the notes for talking points and the queue for the quick clips and graphics should be informed by this strategy imo.

And when someone gets shocked like the experts did with Trubisky, they can honestly say that they were unprepared for this movement. They could even have their own "post war room" or something where they say "This was totally unexpected. Let's get our post war room working on our analysis system for this Case X that we did not anticipate". They could even hype up the results for pre-day 2 talk by advertising: "results from post war room on the shocking Trubisky pick" at 7:50 EST and followed up by the opening of Day 2 at 8! Check your local listings)"

I hate the draft coverage and I would honestly tune in for thoughtful analysis of the prospect and his role on his new team, all NFL teams. I love the whole sport that much.

If I had time and money to put together a youtube channel that might generate extra cash as a breath of fresh air vs. ESPN and NFL Network, that would be something I would like to do or research or help out.

You could get Omelet pants as the host.

 

[bearmick]

But what is a handful?

You mention recommending likely rounds meaning that it is generally a bad idea to draft someone a round before you have them rated (recommended). Does a 1/2 round matter? Someone mentioned that it doesn't matter if you draft someone at 8 even if the evaluation is 13 or 24. Well 24 is 16 picks after 8 or half a round.

I would say getting the #13 guy at 8 is fine. Getting the #24 guy at 8 is a bit much. I don't think there has to be a set, rigidly defined limit, and I don't think an advanced level of common sense is required to tell something reasonable from something absurd in this case.

Everyone's draft board is different. The guy you have at #13 might be #8 on someone else's board. I think it's unlikely the guy you have at #24 is in anyone's top 8.

 

[Outlaw Josey Cutler]

You could get Omelet pants as the host.

No. I was serious there, not trolling. Well, trolling broadcasters and insipid draft coverage, but for the troll to work, it would have to be football-based analysis. I think he posts a good football point twice a year or so. Need that ratio to be much higher.